ArticleBritish journal of cancer2013
Multicentre external validation of IOTA prediction models and RMI by operators with varied training.
Article in British journal of cancer, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 34 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
34 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Have Iota Simple Rules the Same Diagnostic Performance When Used by Nonexpert Examiners as Compared to Expert Examiners? Systematic Review and Meta-Analisis.Journal of clinical ultrasound : JCU · 2026Pooled it
- Diagnostic accuracy of ultrasound models for assessment of ovarian tumors: systematic review and meta-analysis.Ultrasound in obstetrics & gynecology : the official journal of the International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology · 2026Pooled it
- Menopausal status, ultrasound and biomarker tests in combination for the diagnosis of ovarian cancer in symptomatic women.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2022Pooled it
- Strategies to diagnose ovarian cancer: new evidence from phase 3 of the multicentre international IOTA study.British journal of cancer · 2014Pooled it
- Trial
- Ultrasound in Women's Health: Mechanisms, Applications, and Emerging Opportunities.Advanced materials (Deerfield Beach, Fla.) · 2026Review
- Comparative study on the efficacy and safety of ultrasound-guided transluminal (transvaginal/transrectal) and transabdominal core needle biopsy in patients with pelvic masses: a retrospective analysis.Quantitative imaging in medicine and surgery · 2025Article
- Diagnostic Performance of ADNEX Model and IOTA Simple Rules in Differentiating Malignant from Benign Adnexal Masses When Assessed by Non-Expert Examiners.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Article
- Article
- Adnexal Masses in Pregnancy: A Single-Centre Prospective Observational Cohort Study.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Article
- Article
- O-RADS MRI to classify adnexal tumors: from clinical problem to daily use.Insights into imaging · 2024Article
- The diagnostic performance of International Ovarian Tumor Analysis: Simple Rules for diagnosing ovarian tumors-a systematic review and meta-analysis.Frontiers in oncology · 2024Review
- Advantages and Limitations of Ultrasound as a Screening Test for Ovarian Cancer.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- Benign descriptors and ADNEX in two-step strategy to estimate risk of malignancy in ovarian tumors: retrospective validation in IOTA5 multicenter cohort.Ultrasound in obstetrics & gynecology : the official journal of the International Society of Ultrasound in Obstetrics and Gynecology · 2023Article
- Article
- A nomogram model based on clinical markers for predicting malignancy of ovarian tumors.Frontiers in endocrinology · 2022Article
- ESGO/ISUOG/IOTA/ESGE Consensus Statement on pre-operative diagnosis of ovarian tumors.International journal of gynecological cancer : official journal of the International Gynecological Cancer Society · 2021Review
- Sonographic Assessment of Complex Ultrasound Morphology Adnexal Tumors in Pregnant Women with the Use of IOTA Simple Rules Risk and ADNEX Scoring SystemsDiagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
16 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCorrect characterisation of ovarian tumours is critical to optimise patient care. The purpose of this study is to evaluate the diagnostic performance of the International Ovarian Tumour Analysis (IOTA) logistic regression model (LR2), ultrasound Simple Rules (SR), the Risk of Malignancy Index (RMI) and subjective assessment (SA) for preoperative characterisation of adnexal masses, when ultrasonography is performed by examiners with different background training and experience.
methodsA 2-year prospective multicentre cross-sectional study. Thirty-five level II ultrasound examiners contributed in three UK hospitals. Transvaginal ultrasonography was performed using a standardised approach. The final outcome was the surgical findings and histological diagnosis. To characterise the adnexal masses, the six-variable prediction model (LR2) with a cutoff of 0.1, the RMI with cutoff of 200, ten SR (five rules for malignancy and five rules for benignity) and SA were applied. The area under the curves (AUCs) for performance of LR2 and RMI were calculated. Diagnostic performance measures for all models assessed were sensitivity, specificity, positive and negative likelihood ratios (LR+ and LR-), and the diagnostic odds ratio (DOR).
resultsNine-hundred and sixty-two women with adnexal masses underwent transvaginal ultrasonography, whereas 255 had surgery. Prevalence of malignancy was 29% (49 primary invasive epithelial ovarian cancers, 18 borderline ovarian tumours, and 7 metastatic tumours). The AUCs for LR2 and RMI for all masses were 0.94 (95% confidence interval (CI): 0.89-0.97) and 0.90 (95% CI: 0.83-0.94), respectively. In premenopausal women, LR2-RMI difference was 0.09 (95% CI: 0.03-0.15) compared with -0.02 (95% CI: -0.08 to 0.04) in postmenopausal women. For all masses, the DORs for LR2, RMI, SR+SA (using SA when SR inapplicable), SR+MA (assuming malignancy when SR inapplicable), and SA were 62 (95% CI: 27-142), 43 (95% CI: 19-97), 109 (95% CI: 44-274), 66 (95% CI: 27-158), and 70 (95% CI: 30-163), respectively.
conclusionOverall, the test performance of IOTA prediction models and rules as well as the RMI was maintained in examiners with varying levels of training and experience.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.